Sorry Ian

You and I are at different ends in the gliding world. You and your
colleagues obviously want to regulate gliding, I fight like hell to
deregulate it. The world is full of people who want to regulate our
sport(the youngest threat here in Europe is EASA).

Ever read Philip Wills?

To me a gliding sport without massive actions to avoid cheating is more
clean than all this security nonsense.

What about doping? The new world records with flights of more than 2000
km and 15-16 hour long flights are physically demanding. Yes, I know
that this is not the task of GFAC.

Robert

Ian Strachan wrote:
In article , Robert Danewid
writes

Yes I was there, but as you may remember this topic was handled very
briefly.


Robert, this may be because it was put the previous year and this was
the final year of the IGC "two years before a decision" policy.

For the first time (as I recall) the proposal was not read out, but
delegates were reffered to the written report from GFAC.


Which was part of the formal agenda which was published for anyone to
read and certainly available to IGC delegates like yourself. Not the
doing of me or GFAC but that of IGC procedures which expect delegates to
know the agenda and its annexes.

I personally had the impression that we were taking a decision that
would apply to new recorders not old ones.


The GFAC paper published in the agenda nearly 2 months before the
meeting indicated that it was to apply to existing recorder approvals in
two different ways:

1. To uplift recorders that were then at the "up to Diamonds" level but
deserved higher. Such as the Scheffel Themi. Bernd Scheffel and owners
of Themis would be most grateful, I think.

2. To apply the new "all IGC badge flights" level to existing recorders
that did not meet current security levels by a large margin. That is,
they did not even meet the 1997 IGC Specification on these matters. A
particular problem was the type of recorder whose symmetric checksum
system of electronic security was cracked by the Wedekinds several years
ago and also had no security microswitch. Would you support such a
recorder being used for World records beyond April 2004, the present
cut-off ? Some types of recorders with similar levels of weak security
followed, which seems to be what you are objecting to.

Maybe this is because of the finer meanings of the English language,
which is not my native language, that I did not understand this.
Neither did my colleauges.

In my opinion this decision was a masterpiece on how to foul people to
vote in your favour.


Thank you for the inadvertent compliment on my Machiavellian procedures
but what you suggest was not intended. A lot of warning was given in
the IGC agenda papers circulated both in January 2002 and January 2003.

But still, if the argument is what Marc wrote, then why postpone the
implementation?


First to negotiate with the several manufacturers concerned. As you can
imagine, this involved many exchanges including arguments and
disagreements. Then, on the detail that had emerged, to get the support
of the IGC GFA committee, the IGC GNSS committee, and finally the IGC
Bureau. This rightly takes time!

And if some of the comments that suggest that only the highest level
shall be used in international comps, should result in this, it is
really bad.


Annex A to the Code says at the moment "all GNSS FR's approved by the
IGC" without specifying one of the three levels of approval that exist.

This includes the EW series of recorders have been at the lower "badge
flight up to Diamonds" level since 1997. These are the ones that do not
have their own GPS and need a cable connection to a separate Garmin
receiver. They are indeed "IGC-approved" but at the "Diamonds" level.

Under the same argument, the new "all IGC badge and distance diploma"
level of recorders will comply as well. Unless Annex A is changed, of
course, for which the IGC Plenary meeting must consent at their meeting
in Feb 2004 and the change must be in the agenda beforehand.

As you well know, Bob Henderson (IGC First VP and New Zealand delegate)
is the Chairman of the IGC Annex A revision committee, and he can be
contacted at any time (see via the IGC web site). He is the authority
on what is intended for the future in comps that have to comply with
Annex A to the code.

Annex A extract:

-------------------------

5.4 CONTROL PROCEDURES Flights shall be controlled by GNSS flight
recorders (FR).

a. All GNSS FR's approved by the IGC up to two months prior to the
Opening Day shall be accepted.

---------------------------------------------------

snip

putting a lot of effort and resources in to prevent cheating.


A bad thing, then?

Finally, I depart on business to the USA in a couple of days and I will
be "email incommunicado" for two weeks, back to the internet fray on 11
December .......